Talk:Taoist Tai Chi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taoist Tai Chi article.
Article policies

We have to be careful not to inadvertantly imply things about other schools in articles. We can say that Moy said that other styles are competitive, but we can't say that other styles are competitive. Some are, some aren't. Most traditional styles aren't, so we have to be careful. This is a big problem for Westerners especially, since they are enthusiatic about pointing out the differences that they feel are distinguishing factors between what they do and what others do. That can be done, of course, but it has to be done according npov policy, and (from a traditional martial standpoint) what Moy would call "Sense of Propriety." The old Chinese martial arts schools worked out a system of behaviour based on the Confucian family model many centuries ago to eliminate overt competition between them. So it can be implied, by the reasoning of that system, that martial styles of T'ai Chi are overtly competitive by saying Taoist society style isn't at all. Again, the right qualifiers (such as the most recent edits I've made to the article) can clear that up without sacrificing info about the school in question.

Another person who made similar statements, only in reverse, was Bruce Lee. He didn't think that traditional styles were competitive enough! This is from our JKD article:

"Bruce Lee's comments and methods were seen as controversial by many in his time, and still are by many today. Many teachers from traditional schools disagree with his opinions on these issues, especially seeing what Lee described as their lack of strategic flexibility due to "rote" teaching methods to be a misunderstanding on Lee's part. Most, if not all, traditional martial arts teachers say "fluid" strategy is a feature of martial training that is indeed addressed in the curricula of most traditional styles at advanced levels, when the students are ready. The schools Lee criticized tend to see their initial conservatism as a safety feature; a legacy of practical experience passed down from generation to generation, said to ensure that their students are thoroughly prepared for advanced martial training, skipping nothing and developing intangibles such as good character, patience and discipline. The hierarchy of the traditional schools is said by this reasoning to provide a level playing field for all students by instilling respect and care for one's seniors, peers and juniors, so that everyone, not just the physically gifted, has an opportunity to benefit from the training provided in a martial art school."

I mention it because it is a good description of why competition in traditional Chinese schools was discouraged. --Fire Star 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] About paid instructors.

A remark was removed with the comment: (no instructor of Taoist Tai Chi is paid. It is all volunteer work). The 'Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism' and the 'Gei Pang Lok Hup Academy' and the 'Taoist Tai Chi Society' form a happy marriage. Senior staff in one branch teaches in the other. Directors and/or senior staff within the combined organisation are paid officers with annual salaries. These paid officers/members are also teaching Taoist Tai Chi, and thus are paid instructors. Therefore stating that not all instructors are unpaid volunteers is a correct statement. --JohJak2 11:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note, the people who are paid are the administrators, bookkeepers, and the like. Some also happen to be instructors. They are not paid to be instructors, they are paid for their administrative skills. (Added by 199.44.17.15, revision as of 21:51, 2 February 2006)

Administrators etc. are paid by Fung Loy Kok and volunteer their teaching in the Taoist Tai Chi Society. However, FLK and TTCS are really one organisation, and moneys/funds are shifted between them. To tell members that all TTCS instructors are volunteers is a play on words. So TTCS is not open and up front towards their members about how the relationship is really functioning. Alexanderprinciple 10:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

you are both obviously not members of the society. as a former member, (User:VanTucky now denies having been a member, 2007/05/21.) I can tell you the debate over misrepesentation of volunteer status is futile for the simple reason that the only people who dually are paid administrators and volunteer teachers are members who operate at the headquarters in Canada. All heads and administrators of regional branches are unpaid volunteers. Thats hundreds and hundreds of teachers who are in no way shape or form paid by the society. Besides the fact that even at headquarters, the percentage of administrators who are also teachers is miniscule. saying that the society is lying about its volunteers is based on the paid dual admins/teachers that are less than 1 percent of teachers worldwide and is misleading. VanTucky 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You were obviously a member, but a long time ago. When Master Moy lived there were only a minimal number of people in Toronto being paid, as you say. However, since his passing there are now various (quite a few) people, in a number of countries, getting paid as managers. They happen to also teach tai chi, for you have to do something for it. That only a number of instructors in a different function also earn money from the society does not change the way it works. Paid managers is something that would have been unthinkable in Moy's time. JohJak2 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about what would be unthinkable in "Moy's time" like you knew him or are a member of the Society. Once again, the percentage of people who are both paid administrators and instrcutors (which doesnt make them paid tai chi instructors, there is no conlfict of interest for someone paid to do accounting and someone who teaches tai chi) is an absolute minorty. Even the accounting and admin staff of the city/state-wide branches are volunteers. It occurs only scarcely on the national and international level. That teachers of Taoist Tai Chi are volunteers is a simple fact. I have never met once single person who ever had contact with the Society, even at a prospective begginners class with people who decided it wasnt for them, who had a conflict with the Society's honest status as a 501-C3 run by volunteers. Oh nad fyi: I was a member of the Society, (User:VanTucky now denies having been a member, 2007/05/21.) and an assistant instructor, within the last two or three years. Moy had been long gone by the time I was around. There was not a single paid person in the entire Oregon/SW Washington state branch. And when the lady who is the USA head came to teach workshop at Chinese New Year, I asked her about how many teachers were both paid accountants and intrsuctors. she said that this only occured with maybe one in five out of the national headquarters and one in ten out of the international headquarters in Canada. The larger the needs for admin personnel, the more they hired from non-members. and at the state/city branches, they had no need to pay anyone at all bc the ratio between volunteers and amount of clerical work was better balanced. VanTucky 01:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Please don't presume you know the depth of my relation, past or present, with the Society, because you don't. I have he impression that you take this very and unnecessary personal and your reaction comes across as defensive (my impression). I only wanted to clarify a detail: that it is not just people at "headquarters in Canada" anymore that are paid, as it was in Moy's time, but that there are now more in other places, even though the number of people is relatively small. My point is that the Society should, I think, be entirely open about the number of paid members, who they are, and how much they are paid. Since you have only been with the Society the last "two or three years" your knowledge of the history is only recent. Nothing wrong with that.
With reference to the list of names of the moves. I would like to be able to convince you that that list is entirely appropriate where it was. You removed that, without even putting in a reference to an article where you said the names might be found. The list with names takes absolutely no significant (digital) space in the Taoist Tai Chi article, and is handy to have there for reference. Close inspection of the names reveals that they are not 100 % the same (as in e.g. the 103 Yang), nor is the numbering exactly the same. Taoist Tai Chi has its own characteristics and is, as said, although based on the Yang, it is not the same. It may even be confusing for Taoist Tai Chi members to see their moves mentioned under the Yang banner.
JohJak2 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe there is a list of the moves under the TTCS name in the list of forms page. if not let's add it there and link it. I just think that none of the other style pages include a list of moves. and just as the 108 is the standard form, there are other TTC forms (their Lok Hup and such). So I dont want to start a precedent of including long form lists is all. Oh, and youre right, I do tend to take everything personally in debate. a fault of mine. but I especially take attacks on the integrity of the Society bc even though I dont think their tai chi is for me, and that its been reduced to a set of calisthenics, I saw with my own eyes the absolute honesty and compassion that the Society is a vehicle for. Very few organisations in this world truly help people as much as they say, and I hate to see people needlessly attacking one of the only ones that I know for a fact does help people in without asking for anything in return except to be able to continue to help others. VanTucky 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some information I found on other web sites to article Moy Lin-shin. My suggestion re the removed list with moves: place it back since it fits in under this article heading: Taoist Tai Chi. TTC is the name of the form and the moves are part of the form, so this article should contain all things re the form. However, there is some content in this article that might better be placed in a separate, new article, Taoist Tai Chi Society, and that is the paragraphs starting from Moy's form is taught by unpaid volunteer instructor..., and up to the sub heading 'Form principles'. With additional information added how it came about. The Taoist Tai Chi Society is rather unique and deserves its own article. VanBurenen 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

This is an advert for a commercial organisation (Added by 87.114.3.172, revision as of 05:58, 27 May 2006)

This is no more of a "commercial organization" than the Boy Scouts of America or the YWCA. It is a non-profit. Rasp 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading information

Please go to the official Taoist Tai Chi website for correct information. This article is misleading and has the wrong tone. All instructors teach on a voluntory basis. There are a few people who are paid by the society but they are not paid to instruct.```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.48.49.146 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Forms vs information

It is becoming rather annoying, this repeatedly removing the list of tai chi moves by User:VanTucky. You repeatedly remove this list from this article and mention in the commentary box a "forms list page", however, without linking to such a page. So it is guessing what page you mean. I have pointed that out to you before. In the commentary box, you justify your actions by referring to "other internal martial art articles".
I have been looking for a list and I have looked at other articles. Maybe it is this list: List of Tai Chi Chuan forms?. I could not find another. There it says, near the bottom, "Taoist Tai Chi Society form". This appears to be a link to the article Taoist Tai Chi. The one you're cutting the moves from. So you remove information from an article with the comment that it is to be found in that very same article. What nonsense is this? Did you even follow up and check the consequences of your wiping actions?
This article, Taoist Tai Chi, is totally about the form!!! Who developed it, how it is carried out (information you added yourself), and the names of the moves! The names of the moves belong here! All form related information together! The same as in, for example, Wu Chien-ch'uan style long, or 67 movements Combined Tai-Chi Chuan form (also from that List of Tai Chi Chuan forms).
Apparently a solution was found where the information not directly related to the form, such as all that is related to the instructors and the aims and objectives were placed in another, more appropriate article: Taoist Tai Chi Society. Seems logical and entirely sensible to me. Now you've put this information, not form related, back again. How odd.
When I read your comments above I do not (yet) get the impression that you are an unreasonable person. From your user page I even get the impression that you are rather intelligent. Therefore, it surprises me that you keep repeating the same action of effectively destroying information. I ask you to look into this again and not hit the revert button. I have moved more not form related, but Society related information to that appropriate page.
JohJak2 12:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Before, when this page stood for the form and the society, a form list was inappropriate. but now that they are separate articles, you are correct JohJak. and the list box looks better. VanTucky 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Since there doesn't seem to be a userbox for Taoist Tai Chi, I have created one. To add a userbox to your user page just add this code:

{{User:Ahunt/TTC}}

to your user page to display this userbox:

This user does Taoist Tai Chi




Ahunt 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CULT

HOW IS THIS SOCIETY NOT A CULT ? Demeter1 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please observe that this space is for discussion on how to improve the article, not for general discussion of the topic. Please see the guidelines of WP:TALK. VanTucky (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) SORRY, NEW AT THIS FORUM. WHAT I MEANT WAS THE WORD "SOCIETY" IN THE ARTICLE MAY BE INCORRECT. THE ORGANIZATION REVEALS ITSELF TO BE FUNCTIONING MORE ON THE "CULT" MODEL.Demeter1 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use all caps. It is both annoying and unnecessary. Second, all reliable, published sources refer to it under the name Taoist Tai Chi Society, which is also its name under U.S. and Canadian law as a non-profit. Here at Wikipedia we take a neutral point of view on things, so despite our personal opinions on a subject, we do not take sides in debates and controversies. We also do not give undue weight to fringe points of view, that are not supported by publication in reliable sources. VanTucky (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC) THAT'S NOT WHAT I DID BY MAKING MY STATEMENT.PLEASE BE MORE CAREFUL BEFORE JUMPING TO SUCH RECKLESS CONCLUSIONS. WHAT IS YOUR RELIABLE SOURCE THAT MY STATEMENT IS FRINGE ? SOUNDS LIKE AN OPINION TO ME. EXPERIENCE BEGATS FACTS. FACTS NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY REVISED. KNOWLEDGE IS AN ORGANIC THING SO A PICTURE OF SOMETHING CAN GROW. RELIABLE SOURCES TEND TO BE REPETITION OF STATUS QUO IDEALS.Demeter1 21:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MANY OF THE ABOVE ASSERTIONS STATED ABOVE ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG.DID YOU CHECK YOU FACTS?

Dear Demeter1:
Perhaps I can help out here on this issue? If I understand your question correctly, you are asking whether this article should mention that this organization is classified as a cult? If so then I think that is a worthwhile discussion for this talk page.
One of the difficulties with calling an organization a cult is that the Wikipedia page on Cults says that there is no accepted definition of what a cult is. That article does however give many different possible definitions of "cult". Perhaps if you can indicate which operational definition of cult would be a useful measure in this case we can hold a discussion on whether that is the best definition for these circumstances and then whether this particular organization fits that definition?
The key thing then will be to find reliable third-party sources that describe this organization as a cult, since Wikipedia does not allow original research, only the reporting of existing research. See Original research for more information on this subject.
Ahunt 11:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Request: please do not use so many capital letters. It hurts my eyes. :). VanBurenen 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged for Deletion

This article was tagged for deletion today by an administrator User:Bradeos Graphon. The tag indicated that the lack of third party refs meant the article's notability was in doubt. I have since added some third party references, a reflist and removed the tags on it. The article could certainly use more references added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re references

The recently added references surely could use some scrutiny. This one: "Scrivener, Leslie. "Marshalling praise for art of Tai Chi", The Toronto Star, Sep 09, 2007" mentions in the article one David Draper. This person mentions the number of TTCS-locations in The Netherlands. He is quoted saying that when he left The Netherlands there were 40 locations. A simple verification (with www.archive.org), using the website of the Netherlands branch over the past years, gives the following numbers: in the fall (around September) 2001:25, 2002:29, 2003:25, 2004:24, 2005:26, 2006:27, and February 2008:31. Clearly nowhere near 40. Through another source I found the other number where this man was quoted was not correct either (i.e. more than one). This person may be trying to boast his own efforts, however, it puts the article in doubt. --VanBurenen (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As in the Moy Lin-shin article that seems to be listed as just a "general" ref and not a paragraph citation, so if it is of doubtful accuracy or value it can be removed! - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Taoist Tai Chi that can be put into words is not really Taoist Tai Chi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.211.114 (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Form principles and foundation exercises

I reverted the wholesale removal of these sections, as the tone of the content was not advisory or how-to in nature, and these principles and exercises are what makes Taoist Tai Chi unique when compared to other tai chi schools. VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is needed as it does explain how this school differs from others schools. The main thing is that it does not constitute a "how to" manual, as you couldn't take it and actually do tai chi from the descriptions given. It looked like the removals were the first step to removing almost all the content here. - Ahunt (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)